Seriously, long long ago I decided that if I didn't have the intestinal fortitude (guts) to stand behind my words, then there was something wrong with what I had written. So, I do a lot of 'write a draft and file it', and then come back and re-read my words thirty minutes later. If I still feel that way, then I send it. (This policy is much harder to adhere to in oral conversation. I have developed the idiom: "OK, I'll take that under advisement" to cover the situation. That way I get some think-time and I don't stick my foot in my mouth quite so often.)

I was mostly curious about people who login anonymously because they don't want to be associated with their words. It must be a strange feeling to believe in something strongly enough to say it, but not strongly enough to "take credit" for it.

And it's true that you can't predict how people will react to what you've written. One thing Perlmonks has taught me is to pause and consider carefully before writing the first thing that comes to mind, especially in response to something that at first glance appears inflammatory or provoking. When I'm not sure how to respond to something, I often find it wisest to say nothing at all.

I would have to say that we are all learning as we go. Some of us are learning at different levels no doubt but I have seen some sharp people asking questions on Perl Monks.

In fact I will admit right here in front of everyone, I have never successfully installed anything from CPAN. Both times I have tried the *$%#(*& module wouldn't build. Of course except for the Excel and XML modules I've never actually needed anything off CPAN. In the Excel case I just did it in VBA (ugh). I've never had time to futz with it at work, and I have different interests after work. That is changing now, but CPAN is my boogey man.

Laugh all you want, I feel so much more humble now; soon I will try again (when I am not under a deadline) and ask my fellow monks what I am doing wrong if it doesn't work...

Update: (VBA is Visual Basic for Applications, it is used to control the Office Applications)

I use the green theme with a few personal CSS tweaks. Using any theme other than the default means that it's just about impossible to post a message without logging in... because everything looks different! Which means, AFAICR, I've never posted anonymously.

Using any theme other than the default means that it's just about impossible to post a message without logging in...

My web browser is configured to ignore colors specified by websites,
so the difference is less obvious. I still almost always remember
to log in, because if you're not logged in there's a login form on the
page, but I've been known to forget on occasion.

And no, I'm not going to subject myself to the arbitrary aesthetic
whims of every website I ever visit just so I'll notice more easily
if I'm not logged into Perlmonks. I haven't surfed the web with
site-specified colors enabled (well, not on anything resembling a
regular basis at any rate) since approximately 1998. Too many
webmasters have terrible tastes in colors.

Sanity? Oh, yeah, I've got all kinds of sanity. In fact, I've developed whole new kinds of sanity. You can just call me "Mister Sanity". Why, I've got so much sanity it's driving me crazy.

I've done it from work, when I had a question which I really needed an answer to quickly (the same circumstances under which I will IRC from work).

I prefer not to log in to websites from the office because I find I get distracted if I have access to all the things that come with an account. For instance, with PerlMonks I might start reading the chatterbox or adding comments to polls...

I prefer not to log in to websites from the office because I find I get distracted if I have access to all the things that come with an account. For instance, with PerlMonks I might start reading the chatterbox or adding comments to polls...

You can do both of those as an AM. On the other hand, if you log in, you can hide the chatterbox with /chatteroff and turn off the poll nodelet.

I want my posts to stand or fall on their own merits, not my personal reputation, for good or for ill.

People sometimes risk falling into a 'cult of personality' mentality. Too often, I feel that the message gets overshadowed by the messenger. I'm not happy with this state of affairs.

I post anonymously in an attempt to work around this quirk of the human psyche, and try to get a more honest reponse to my words. It's interesting and challenging; in my experience, anonymous posters are viewed as something of "second class citizens"; and I guess I've always been a fan of privacy, and of underdogs.

I've noted that the exact same posting seems to generate a better response if made under a newly invented pseudonym than if posted as the "anonymous" user. I haven't figured out exactly why, but the social behaviour interests me...

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Often the messenger is part of the message. For example, if George "Dubya" Bush and Hillary Clinton both said "The war in Iraq is going well," different people would find that news more believable from one than the other. Or, even better, if they both said "We'll be out of Iraq soon," well, the interpretations of how that would happen would be vastly different. Based on the messenger.

Closer to home, if someone posted something controversial about Perl 6, is it a bad thing that we take it seriously when posted by (among others) Ovid or TheDamian or TimToady, but with a grain of salt if posted by a known troll (in the spirit of not provoking a flamewar, I'll let the reader decide who they think is a known troll rather than sharing my opinions on who would fall under that category as it's not really relevant who, in particular, it is). Extend that a bit more, and we look at Anonymous Monks. These are treated with suspicion by many (myself included) just because there is an absence of credibility. Not just poor credibility, but a complete lack. There is no context to place the message against to help decipher how to interpret the words.

As for the newly invented pseudonym, there are a couple factors here. First is the possibility of a history, thus context, being created. Second, the optimism that a new pseudonym is actually not only a new member, but has gone through the effort to "officially" join the club and be included, affords them a bit of leeway on the credibility, even if it's just the context of "I joined your group and am attempting to contribute to it." There is a presumed level of commitment that grows as the use of that pseudonym shows more posts, or even more time in the CB.

If you're at work, and someone comes up to you to tell you you're fired, isn't important that you know who this person is when deciding how to react? e.g., your immediate manager, their manager, the department clown, someone you've never met, or someone with a bag over their head?

> the exact same posting seems to generate a better response if made under a newly invented pseudonym

My experience on USENET is that a psuedonym that looks like a real name (Kurt Wallich or Crowder Thompson) gets more respect than an obvious psuedonym (LargeSpaceMonkey or Gravedigger) which still get more respect than psuedonyms that are unpronounceable or illegible (gR9jmlcrq or §¥ww«)

People sometimes risk falling into a 'cult of personality' mentality. Too often, I feel that the message gets overshadowed by the messenger. I'm not happy with this state of affairs.

Yep you're right! For some proof to back up your claim, Just look at how some of the later more intelligent questions from Nik and Win were handled. Their reputation ruined any chance of them ever getting a polite and correct answer.

Of course this is posted anon to protect my XP. Now if only I had configured a proxy server to hide my real IP so no one could guess who I am.

Only by mistake..I tried myself and after some minutes i didn't get ouput, i just open my favour help perlmonks and asked questions to my monks sometimes, after post the question i come to know i didn't login....

It was only once and I was being "obnoxious, obstreperous, and rude" (or at least one of the three). Unfortunately I can't remember the node so it can be happily downvoted but feel free to take it out on this one :-)

--Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought. -Basho

I would just like to assure you that I have a very fine degree of control over my fiery breath, and toastings can range from the lightest (suitable for marshmallows) all the way to complete incineration.